sarge458

jvmb said:

brakken said:

Your understanding of software architecture vs software management is confused and superficial.

Please explain

I figured that hmlongco's proposal was a good idea, but my understanding of software architecture is limited.  I imagine this would work similar to Bitlocker. Microsoft does not own the decryption key if you encrypt your Windows laptop with bitlocker.

Given where governments around the world are heading, having third party encryption may be the only option to secure devices and apps. With the UK, Brazil, New York, and California demanding back doors already, some laws are bound to get passed somewhere requiring Apple, What's App and others to build back doors.

Apple and Goolgle can not afford to stop selling devices in large markets as a third platform may gain the critical mass to become a viable alternative. I see only two ways around that.
1) Sell devices without encryption and allow users to add encryption through third party software.
2) Create two versions hardware and OS, one with encryption and one without. Both would be compatible with the same apps, but the secure version would only be sold in jurisdictions that allow the sale of encrypted devices without back doors. I'd be curious to see which version government officials would use. I am pretty sure they would by the secure version.

If option 1 is not technically feasible, then that would only leave option 2.